"M. SCHIAVO: I won't give it up. Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about me, not about Congress, it's about Terri."
….
"KING: Do you understand how [her parents] feel?"
"M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want…"
"The evidence provided by a standard of clear and convincing evidence is that it is Mrs. Schiavo's wish that she not be allowed to continue in a persistent vegetative state" - Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla.
The only clear thing here is that Michael Schiavo is talking out boths sides of his mouth.
(HT: Nick Queen)
Funky Dung
Comments 13
way to take half a sentence and hang your position on it.
it's entirely possible that you have a valid point here, but you need to give the context and you need to at least give the end of the sentence. From what you've given it is entirely possible he simply mispoke, and corrected himself later in the sentence.
Not that I'm saying he did, just that you really haven't given a substanitive chunk of data here.
+0
Posted 21 Mar 2005 at 4:53 pm ¶I understand your concern. I worried about the same thing (re: the end of the sentence). However, if you click the link and read the transcript, you'll see that Schiavo trailed off. The periods do not indicate editing on my part, but a representation of a statement interrupted by King.
+0
Posted 21 Mar 2005 at 5:10 pm ¶M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want…
KING: You're not — it didn't cost you anything. This is not something where you're looking to save money?
M. SCHIAVO: No. There's no money involved. We need to move on from that question. That question has been asked me 50 million times. There is no money!
+0
Posted 21 Mar 2005 at 5:10 pm ¶How do you respond to a post like this on how this has become politicized?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_20_digbysblog_archive.html#111134934659869241
dlw
+0
Posted 21 Mar 2005 at 6:16 pm ¶I do agree that I think the Republican party is a disgrace, as is the Tort Reform Act. Having doctors create a board to certify cases is one thing. Having caps when the treatment for a person who wants treatment for the rest of their life, especially in Ms. Schiavo's case (I feel gross calling her "Mrs." when I feel her husband wasn't ever a true husband).
I also think that starving a person to death is disgusting, but an unfortunate part of American law. Because we don't like taking responsibility, we have no duty to aid those who need it. If you see a kid drowning and you're a champion swimmer? Don't worry! You don't have to do a thing, legally! In fact, if you did try and save him, you could get in more trouble.
On the other hand, I've heard that Schiavo's soul is a topic for discussion. I can't see how she could commit a mortal sin, being that she can't make a decision mentally nor physically do much but blink. That's just cruel to say, from what I understand of her capabilities at this point, even if you go to the extremes of what she can do. Even if people take away her feeding tubes, she can't stop them. It's not suicide if she can do nothing either way, correct?
+0
Posted 21 Mar 2005 at 11:51 pm ¶She may have committed mortal sins that she didn't get a chance to confess before she became incapacitated. That's about the only way I see her soul in any danger.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2005 at 3:27 am ¶Well, if she belongs to an apostolic church (I dunno what her religious persuasion is), last rites will take care of mortal sins from the pre-"vegetative" state, provided she's contrite.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2005 at 6:19 pm ¶Michael Schiavo was granted authority under Florida law to make decisions for his wife's medical treatment. Her parents then challenged his decision, and the issue wound up in the Florida court. In that sense, everything is about what Michael Schiavo and his wife's parents want, because Terri is functionally not around to say what she wants. So no, he does not know what she wants. He does think he knows what she would have wanted over fifteen years ago before she entered this "persistent vegetative state," but still, technically, no, he doesn't know what Terri wanted for all the hullaballoo that's going on right now.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2005 at 6:34 pm ¶Tom, the courts have denied her right to receive viaticum. That would count as feeding her.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2005 at 8:11 pm ¶First off, Eric, if she were in a state of mortal sin and received communion, she'd only be worse off. (At least from the most mechanical point of view — though I find it hard to believe that God would point and laugh at the poor vegetative woman who was force-fed the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.)
Secondly, the viaticum (in the Latin Church, at least) is three things: Absolution, Extreme Unction, and communion. Absolving her is all that is necessary.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2005 at 5:42 am ¶I'm aware of all that, Tom. She's not permitted to receive last rites because the Schindlers aren't permitted to bring in a priest, so far as I know. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2005 at 2:42 pm ¶Ahh, I see. I thought you meant that communion alone had been denied.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2005 at 4:30 pm ¶I both read and heard that she did receive last rites and communion the day her tube was removed. I think that worked out.
The awfulness is that she should be being fed by mouth now. The tube should be considered the extraordinary means, if they insist on identifying it as such. If she can live on eating by mouth….
But her husband has forbidden that for 8 years.
This is brutal starvation.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2005 at 5:39 pm ¶Post a Comment